for earnestly desiring to be clothed upon,' write 'longing to clothe ourselves.' The English version involves a blunder in the voice of the Greek verb. Ver. 3 should stand 'seeing that we shall verily be found clothed, and not naked.' The verse asserts strongly, with a view to substantiate and explain ver. 2, the truth of the resurrection in a glorified body, probably in reference to the deniers of the resurrection at Corinth : and the sense is 'For I do assert again, that we shall in that day prove to be clothed with a body, and not disembodied spirits.' In ver. 6, the full sense of the words would be better given by 'whilst we are in our home in the body, we are away from our home in the Lord.' In the parenthesis which follows 'not by sight' should be 'not by appearance.' The word signifies not that by which we see, but that which we see. Again, we should express it, 'to go from our home in the body, and to come to our home with the Lord.' In ver. 10, 'appear' ought to be, 'be made manifest.' Ver. 11, is a curious instance of misrendering and is often used and preached upon as having a sense which was never in the Apostle's mind. His meaning is, 'knowing then,' being ourselves conscious of, the fear of the Lord,' i e.,

:

being God-fearing persons ourselves, looking for, and living under the consciousness of, this éclaircissement before Christ's judgment-seat-' we persuade MEN,' i. e., it is MEN that we attempt to persuade, not God, to whom we are already made manifest. The 'terror,' or 'terrors,' as sometimes further misquoted, has been altogether imported into the verse: and the excellent lesson so often preached from it, that being aware of the terrible judgments of God, we persuade others to avoid them, is wholly alien from its purport. In ver. 13, 'to God' should be 'for God.' In ver. 14, 'the love of Christ' should have been expressed 'Christ's love.' It is not our love to Christ, but His to us which is spoken of. The love of Christ' may mean this, but is ambiguous. Then all were dead' is a sad misrendering and obscuration of the sense. It should be 'then all died.' It does not follow, because one dies for another, that that other was dead, but it does follow that that other died by substitution, virtually died, inasmuch as one died for him. And thus we all died in Christ's death for us. In ver. 18, omit'hath' twice. In ver. 19, the words should stand, to wit, that God was reconciling the world unto Himself in Christ.' Again, omit 'hath.'

K

In ver. 20, omit 'you.' It is the general office of the ministry of which he is speaking.

In chap. vi., from the beginning of ver. 6 to the word 'God' in ver. 7, the prepositions should all be 'in' and then to the end of the list in ver. 8, 'through.' The Apostle having made this difference, the translators ought to have carefully observed it, instead of rendering both the Greek words by an indiscriminate 'by.'

. In chap. vii. 2, omit 'have' three times. Ver. 13 should stand 'For this cause we have been comforted; but in our comfort we joyed the more exceedingly,' &c. In ver. 14, 'I am not ashamed' ought to be 'I was not put to shame and 'is found,' 'was found.'

In chap. viii. 1, 'make known to you' would now be better understood than the obsolete 'do you to wit of' In ver. 16, 'put' should be 'putteth.' In ver. 22, 'I have,' supplied by the translators, should be 'he hath.' In ver. 23, the messengers' should have been faithfully rendered as St. Paul wrote it, 'Apostles.' A mere ecclesiastical difficulty should not induce us to quash the weighty testimony of a word like this being used of other persons than those commonly

thus known. There is no definite article before

'Apostles.'

Chap. ix. 4. they of Macedonia' should be 'any Macedonians.' In ver. 5, 'bounty' (twice) ought to be blessing': and in the next verse bountifully' should be 'with blessings.'

Chap. xi. I, and indeed bear with me' ought to be 'but indeed ye do bear with me.' In ver. 4, for preacheth' and 'receive,' read 'as preaching,' and are receiving.' He is supposing a fact, not merely stating a contingency. And in the same verse, for 'have not preached' and 'have not accepted, read 'preached not' and 'accepted not.' In the next verse, for the very chiefest apostles' should stand those overmuch apostles: i. e., those men who pretend to be more than the Apostles themselves. He means, the false and rival teachers, not the Apostles. This, which I have endeavoured to substantiate in my note on the passage, is clear from the context in which the same expression occurs, ch. xii. II (see below). In ver. 16 'I' should be 'I too,' viz., as well as they. In ver. 21 the words should stand, 'By way of disparagement I assume that we were weak,' thus ironically calling to mind his abstinence, when among them, from

all these acts of self-exaltation at their expense.

6

In ver. 28, for the care of, read 'my anxiety for.'

In ch. xii. 2, 'I knew a man,' should be ‘I know a man.' This is a serious blunder. The Apostle is not speaking of one whom he once, but of one whom he now knows. Fourteen years ago is the date, not of the knowledge, as our version makes it, but of the vision. The same is the case in ver. 3 also. At the end of ver. 6, ' of me' should be 'from me.' In ver. 7, for the messenger,' 'the angel.' There was no reason for departing from the ordinary New Testament meaning of the word. In ver. 8, 'for' would be better 'concerning.' In ver. 11, for am I behind,' read 'came I behind.' The translators have knowingly misrendered the past tense to suit their sense. For the very chiefest Apostles,' read as above, 'those overmuch Apostles.' This is absolutely required here. St. Paul challenges them to compare him with his rivals among them, and states that in no particular did he come behind them. This could not apply to the Twelve, whom the Corinthians had never seen. The translators were aware of this, and in bad faith altered the past tense, 'came I behind,' to a present, am I behind.' This is the way